By Louise Couëffé, University of Angers
In 1912, the system of circulation of specimens was modified because of a changing of the numbers of the plants by Brother Héribaud, which caused some mistakes. Brother Arsène directly sent some of the plants for identification to A. Daveau and other botanists, such as Bouly de Lesdain and Jules Cardot. They were the main elements of this multipolar network of the circulation of those plants. However, Brother Héribaud went on centralising the main part of the collect and sending plants to other botanists: in 1912, he sent a Ranunculus to Hector Léveillé, who studied it and wrote an article in the Bulletin de l’Académie internationale de Géographie botanique. Hector Léveillé also received some plants from Mexico from Carl Hansen Ostenfeld, a Danish botanist, for whom it is not possible to identify the way of acquisition of those plants. The fact that the first network became multipolar and was completed by commercial networks blurred some aspects of the circulation of specimens. However, as each specimen was informed with the name of the species, the locality and date of collecting and the name of the collector, and linked to scientific publication through their number, they could be used as scientific objects linked to scientific knowledge or integrated in herbaria as objects of collections.
Those specimens were both scientific objects, studied for identification or description of new species, and objects of collection having a geographical and botanical interest as well as an economic value. The plants sent to Brother Héribaud were also a kind of economic resource for the congregation, as they were sold to amateurs of Botany and collectors. Prince Roland Bonaparte bought many specimens collected by Brother Arsène (471) or Brother Nicolas (338) from 1906 to 1911. The correspondence between Brother Héribaud and M. Belhatte, a botanist in charge of Roland Bonaparte’s Herbarium, show that each plant was bought for 0,20 or 0,25 f. He also sold plants to merchants of plants, who sold them to other collectors for their herbaria. If it’s difficult to identify the way the followed to enter Monguillon’s herbarium, because not documented by correspondence, Eugène Monguillon was in contact with a lot of Botanists at this time, a part of them studying lichens, and also with Hector Léveillé. If he was fond of the study of lichens, the Mexican specimens were conserved in a collection of exotic lichens made of three volumes not registered in his catalogue (unlike his specimens from Sarthe).
In the case of Harmand’s lichens, the specimens were given by Bouly de Lesdain after their study, because they were labelled with the labels of his herbarium. They seem also to have been conserved as part of the main collection.

Finally, before 1914, the merchants were also the intermediaries with the scientific institutions which acquired plants collected by Brother Arsène and Brother Adelme-Nicolas in Mexico, which was the case for the Smithsonian Institution of Botany in Washington or the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, and probably others.
Those networks were interrupted by the First World War and the departure of the Brothers from Mexico. Afraid to lose his collection, Brother Arsène hid his herbarium (4 square metres) in an old abandoned house. If a part of it was destroyed during the Revolution, he could get the rest back with the help of the Smithsonian Institution. Many plants arrived in scientific institutions where they were studied and revised for publications. In the end of the 1920, the National Museum of Natural History in Paris obtained a part of Brother Nicolas’ collections, and in 1930 Brother Arsène gave a part of his collection to the Museum. Some of them also arrived in the National Herbarium of Mexico, sometimes through San Borja school.

The Brothers were encouraged to collect plants, because it allowed them to admire the Creation and because they were sold for the Congregation. However, they were few to study plants in order to publish: most of the plants they collected were studied by other botanists, mainly European or American. The numerous plant materials could work they made for each species enabled them to study precisely the various characters of the plants, to identify the plants or to describe new species, but they were also objects of collection, sometimes conserved apart from the main herbaria made by botanists. The circulation of plants between Mexico and France or in Mexico gave visibility and status to Brother Arsène and Brother Nicolas: they were collectors, whose plants were dispersed all over the world for collections or Botanical studies. Most of their plants were studied by European or American botanists. After some years in Puebla and Morelia, the work of Brother Arsène was recognised in the scientific congress of Mexico. Those circulations and variability of visibility and recognition produced an asymmetric historiography about their participation in Botany in France and Mexico: they are more mentioned in Mexican historiography, where they are presented as main collectors for the local flora, than in French historiography.
Some bibliographical references
Laura CHAZARO, Nina HINKE, El Instituto Médico Nacional. La política de las plantas y los laboratorios a fines del siglo XIX, México, Coordinación de Humanidades UNAM, Cinvestav, 2012, 225 p.
José Luis GODINEZ, Martha M. ORTEGA, Liquen logia de México, historia y bibliografía, in Cuadernos 3, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Autónoma de México, 1989, 43 p.
José Luis GODINEZ ORTEGA, “Colectores de Algas de México (1787-1954)”, Acta Botánica Mexicana, n°85, 2008, p.75-97
Bernard Alphonse GROUSSET, André MEISSONNIER, Les Frères au Mexique. Première étape (1905-1921), FSC, 2019 [1982] (traduction L. Lauraire), 197 p.
Teófilo HERRERA, Breve Historia de la Botánica en México, México, Fondo de cultura Económica, 1998, 167 p.
David W. JOHNSON, Margaret R. JOHNSON, “Botanical collections of Brother Gerfroy Arsène Brouard.”, online on the site of University of New Mexico, [URL: https://msb.unm.edu/news/_pdf/arsene-article.pdf]
Colin LE BALLE et Michel HOFF, « Herbier du Mexique du Prince Roland Bonaparte, récolté dans les années 1910 », Herbier de l’Université de Strasbourg [URL : http://herbier.unistra.fr/herbier-de-strasbourg/herbier-general/herbier-roland-bonaparte/]
Olivier PERRU, « The Brothers of the Christian Schools and the botanical research at the beginning of the 20th century: some examples of their works”, Conference Paper, 2012, 7 p. [URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318725603]
Silvia Elena PURATA VELARDE, Las colecciones botánicas del hermano G. Arsene en Mexico, Tesis para obtener el título de Biólogo, Universidad Autónoma de México, 1981, 108 p.
Patricia DAVILA ARANDA, Herbario Nacional de México (Colecciones biológicas nacionales del Instituto de Biología), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Biología, 1991, 122 p.
Jerzy RZEDOWSKY, Los principales colectores de plantas activos en México entre 1700 y 1930, México, Instituto de Ecología, 2009, 133 p.
Alicia TECUANHUEY SANDOVAL, Clérigos, politicos y politica. Las relaciones Iglesia y Estado en Puebla, siglos XIX y XX, Instituto de Ciencias sociales y humanidades, Benemerita Universidad de Puebla, 162 p.
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Nathalie Richard (June 8, 2022). Two Brothers botanists: Mexican plants in French herbaria (Part 2). SciCoMove — Scientific Collections on the Move. Retrieved May 19, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/twsp